This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

If you think that Scalia's vitriolic dissent was becoming of Supreme Court Justice and was founded in logic....then I think it speaks clearly as to what constitutes a "dim bulb".

Considering the lawless disregard of the Constitution the majority's exercise of judicial fiat involved, I think Justice Scalia's comments were, if anything, too moderate. He would have been nothing but truthful if he had called Kennedy an unprincipled liar and a disgrace to the Court. And Scalia's arguments were very solidly founded in logic, as were Justice Thomas's. I doubt you've read Obergefell, and I am sure you would not understand the legal issues raised in the dissenting opinions if you had. Having read your posts, I'm not the least surprised that you would accept Kennedy's high-sounding, incoherent gibberish as legal reasoning.

Obergefell is a direct attack on both democracy and the freedom of religion. Its sloppy, emotion-driven gobbbledygook has a special appeal for the witless. That includes most of the millions of pseudo-liberal lumps in the lumpenproletariat who are now taking up space in this once-great nation. Like their president, they care only about getting theirs, and they do not give a tinker's damn about this country, its Constitution, or the rule of law. The thought that a million American men have died to defend the rights of a such a bunch of simpering pajama boys is disgusting.

If you don't like rules within a country, why would you not seek to change them? If you don't like the way people are treated within a country, why would you not seek to change that? That is the entire reason our country exists, because some people did not like something about the country and sought to change it. That doesn't mean that change cannot be an advancement for the country as well.

Greetings, roguenuke.

I agree with most of what you posted, but I don't agree about why our country exists. Many of our original settlers came to America because they wanted religious freedom that they didn't have in Europe at that time. Later, millions of immigrants in the early 1900s came to our shores through Ellis Island because they were fleeing from countries whose laws they didn't agree with - the caste system, serfdom, dictatorship, famines in their countries, and other reasons, and for the most part they worked hard, obeyed our laws, learned our language, and became citizens, even though it wasn't made easy for them in many cases, since the welfare system as we now know it didn't exist, and they had to rely on friends, neighbors and church charities to help them until they could make it on their own, and they did that as quickly as possible.

Many laws had to be enacted, and revisions made, and we're still in the process of doing that today. Most make sense, while others are so new that we won't know until time passes if they are beneficial for everyone.

Of course people have been made aware of the issue. That has been the plan. It's one of many wedge issues that by themselves are important to a few, but carry the water for the larger agenda.

I think it's possible a "tolerance" level to these changes may be reached, if not already. I will be interesting to see if that is true.

The fact that the US is being made different today could be a catalyst for push back.

I do not think there will be a push back. Many issues are more important than same sex marriage and abortion and so on. These issues are important and I do not deflate them but at the moment economy, immigration and others are more important to the masses.

The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.Sophie B. Hawkins

When have they not ended up being the case (the slippery slope argument)? Corporations became people, abortions became easier and easier to get, and with each decision we push farther away from the constitutional model and toward the Ayatollah model.

riiiiiiiiiight....because expansion of rights is so consistent with middle eastern politics.

Considering the lawless disregard of the Constitution the majority's exercise of judicial fiat involved, I think Justice Scalia's comments were, if anything, too moderate. He would have been nothing but truthful if he had called Kennedy an unprincipled liar and a disgrace to the Court. And Scalia's arguments were very solidly founded in logic, as were Justice Thomas's. I doubt you've read Obergefell, and I am sure you would not understand the legal issues raised in the dissenting opinions if you had. Having read your posts, I'm not the least surprised that you would accept Kennedy's high-sounding, incoherent gibberish as legal reasoning.

Obergefell is a direct attack on both democracy and the freedom of religion. Its sloppy, emotion-driven gobbbledygook has a special appeal for the witless. That includes most of the millions of pseudo-liberal lumps in the lumpenproletariat who are now taking up space in this once-great nation. Like their president, they care only about getting theirs, and they do not give a tinker's damn about this country, its Constitution, or the rule of law. The thought that a million American men have died to defend the rights of a such a bunch of simpering pajama boys is disgusting.

Your sour grapes are no more founded in logic than the dissenting opinions.

I don't believe the Bible is anything more than words written by men a long time ago, men who believed they were speaking for God, but didn't know anymore than the rest of us what God or any higher power really wants, thinks, believes.

riiiiiiiiiight....because expansion of rights is so consistent with middle eastern politics.

So, can't back up your statement then about the slippery slope argument used in dissents? And yes, "rights" are determined by the Ayatollahs. Ours were by Constitution, rather than the will of nine black robed authorities, WERE. Not any longer. And when even the Chief Justice notes the condition, it's silly to hide it from yourself.

Roberts wrote: "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. ... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

So, can't back up your statement then about the slippery slope argument used in dissents? And yes, "rights" are determined by the Ayatollahs. Ours were by Constitution, rather than the will of nine black robed authorities, WERE. Not any longer. And when even the Chief Justice notes the condition, it's silly to hide it from yourself.

Hmmmmmm lets see.....gay marriage more likely in a middle eastern country or the position of anti-gay bigots more consistent with a middle eastern country? Ding Ding Ding....what is your answer Clownboy?

Hmmmmmm lets see.....gay marriage more likely in a middle eastern country or the position of anti-gay bigots more consistent with a middle eastern country? Ding Ding Ding....what is your answer Clownboy?

No one was talking about the likelihood of gay marriage in the middle east. It's about how/who makes the decision to restrict or allow the behavior. Our system, it used to be the Constitution that was the ultimate authority. Now it's the will of the Ayatollahs.

Roberts wrote: "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. ... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

No, I said it is funny that you don't see the obvious contradiction in your supposition about liberals "not caring" about marriage...... while expanding the right to marry. You can characterize your overlooking your contradiction as "interesting", but apparently it is not "interesting" enough for you to explore.

Originally Posted by Drumpf

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

Originally Posted by jaeger19

I am a medical provider. Try having the pressure of someones life in your hands.